For more than a century, the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath has offered women a rare and vital sanctuary — a place to unwind, connect with nature, and simply be. It is a serene and deeply cherished refuge, especially for those who seek comfort in the absence of male presence. From older women and religious minorities to survivors of male violence, the Ladies’ Pond has long served as a uniquely safe space. Its atmosphere of female solidarity and privacy is both historic and invaluable.
But in 2017, the City of London Corporation (CoL), which manages the Heath, decided to permit trans women access to the Ladies’ Pond and its changing facilities. This policy, though well-intentioned, has caused significant discomfort and controversy among many female users. Some women have chosen to self-exclude rather than compromise their own sense of privacy and safety, and tensions have continued to grow.
The situation recently reached a legal and cultural tipping point. In April 2024, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that under the Equality Act 2010, the legal definitions of “woman” and “man” refer to biological sex, not gender identity. This landmark decision casts doubt over the legality of policies like CoL’s, which continue to allow biological males into female-only spaces.
Despite this ruling, the CoL has shown little sign of reconsidering its policy. Its position is backed by the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association (KLPA), which claims to represent the interests of the pond’s users. The KLPA continues to affirm that the pond remains a “women-only” space, while simultaneously supporting the inclusion of trans women — a contradiction made starker in light of the recent court ruling.
This inconsistency has sparked further frustration. Campaigners argue that if spaces cannot be clearly defined based on biological sex, then the legal right to single-sex provision — a protection the Equality Act specifically grants — is at risk of becoming meaningless. If men cannot enter the Men’s Pond while identifying as women, why must women tolerate the reverse?
Biologist and Sex Matters trustee Emma Hilton has been vocal in highlighting how sex-specific spaces matter. She, and many others, argue that women’s rights to dignity, privacy and safety must not be diluted by policies that prioritise inclusivity over reality. No one is arguing against the existence of third or mixed-sex spaces — in fact, many would welcome better provisions for all. But these must not come at the expense of hard-won rights for women.
More Read
There is precedent for this. Other facilities across the country have moved towards creating inclusive yet distinct spaces — offering a female-only, male-only and mixed or gender-neutral option. This model respects everyone’s needs without compromising the legal protections women are entitled to under the law.
Meanwhile, figures like Venice Allen, once a KLPA member, continue to fight for a return to clarity and fairness at the Ladies’ Pond. Her expulsion from the association for opposing male access is emblematic of the increasingly polarised and hostile nature of the debate. Yet she remains defiant, insisting, “It shall be ours again one day.”
The time has come for the City of London Corporation to acknowledge the ruling of the highest court in the land and uphold the integrity of female-only spaces. The Kenwood Ladies’ Pond must once again be what it was intended to be: a sanctuary for women, where their right to privacy is not only respected but protected.
Anything less is not just a failure of duty — it is a denial of women’s rights.
